Poll: Pirating games. Discuss.

[Tharwen]

Used to be a pirate. That's how most kids become gamers. I remember from highschool that everyone who played either casually or seriously was a pirate.
Now that I have money, I always buy legal.

Exactly this.

So... erm. Yeah. This.

I don't have any pirated software any more.

 

[incal11]

I feel that the title says it all, but maybe I'll expand a little. Do you think it's right for the gamers to download games for free, bypassing the shops and online stores, therefore denying the producers and other creators of the games no money for their art? And why do you think it's right or wrong?
Oh, and I'm not sure if this has been done before but views may change, times may affect views. Don't immediately point out that this thread has been done before if it has, where's the fun in that?

Somehow I can't get admiral Ackbar out of my mind here
Before this gets locked/deleted I hope you take the time to check this, regardless of your opinion:
http://questioncopyright.org/minute_memes/cint_release
(not just the funny clip, download the whole thing)

I've done so many debate on this topic already. I feel like trying to get some to answer me, instead of me answering them... excuse me, but for this I need a large net.

Spoiler

hi

hi

hi

hi

hi

hi

hi

hi

hi

hi

hi

hi

hi

hi

hi

Whether you ar for or against "piracy", I'm interested in your opinions on this. Thank you for any intelligent reasoning you may take the time to share with me

Digitalisation ultimately reduces everything to mere ideas. Does every copy absolutely needs to be paid for ? Some of you said it, if the idea is otherwise unavailable and would be fading into obscurity then copying it is not even a "grey area" but entirely justified. It's "grey" because of the law, but a law that makes everyone using a computer a criminal by default is insane and deserves no respect.
Is an artist really so justified to expect total control on what becomes of his ideas ? Is that expectation at all realistic ? Well no, controlling ideas is an illusion, and a distasteful one.
Why "piracy" is "wrong" boils down to it being possibly "unjust enrichment" of a part of the public:
https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Unjust_enrichment
In a (probably vain) attempt to further that debate I have considered this, where the defendant is the Pirate and the claimant the Copyright Holder:
1. Was the defendant enriched?
Yes.
2. Was the enrichment at the expense of the claimant?
No, or not provable.
3. Was the enrichment unjust?
Failure to profit is not the responsibility of the defendant.
4. Does the defendant have a defense?
Yes, freedom of information and fair use.
5. What remedies are available to the claimant?
On screen advertising for streamed medias, being popular among the clients and using that popularity for merchandising are two examples proven to work.
--One more aspect to this, can the law do anything about it ? Yes and no, it's clear illegal copying will never be stopped and only the most unlucky will be made to pay dearly.

 

[Treblaine]

The thing about piracy is although it is wrong copyright law cannot take the moral high ground as the corporate intellectual ownership has quite frankly gotten out of control.

Things like how the Happy Birthday song being "owned" by The Time-Warner Corporation in 1998 a whole 100 years after the song was first sung, they now charge TEN THOUSAND DOLLARS for anyone to use the song in a public performance. Ten grand for a song everyone sings every year at birthdays.

I cannot respect a law that is THAT detached from reality.

All intellectual property laws have become fundamentally unjust now, especially when Apple just this month in 2011 they got a patent for "The process of touching a screen with fingers to cause the software to react"

WHAT! In 2011 with the market flooded with devices that does that Apple is granted a patent to use a touchscreen.

They didn't even invent the touchscreen, they are merely staking claim to the IDEA OF USING IT FOR IT'S SOLE PURPOSE! What the hell could you use a touchscreen for other than changing the software. I mean the prior art before their application, the state of the current market. This utterly stifles innovation!

Now every time you make a documentary you have to blur out everyone's T-shirt and cap because although EVERYTHING is covered in brands, you can't "copy" them by just filming a documentary.

Sure, it may be the law, but intellectual property law is utterly detached from reality, no one really thinks violating copyright is wrong.

 

[Eclectic Dreck]

I'll keep my comment on the subject brief. I do not engage in piracy of any media and only rarely see an argument supporting the practice that holds up under even cursory inspection. Those rare cases generally deal with games that are simply impossible to acquire through normal means (i.e. the game license holder has gone out of business in such a way as to make a re-release impossible on a old title, or to put it another way, the argument used to support downloadings ROMs of obscure old titles. This argument I accept so long as the person instantly purchases the product should the opportunity present itself, or if they already own a copy of the game. The other case I tend to accept is if someone legally owns a copy of a game but does not possess all of the media).